Macbook Air Specs leaked on Apple.com?

Discussion in 'Macworld San Francisco 2008' started by S600MBUSA, Jan 14, 2008.

  1. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2007
    Location:
    Georgia
    #1
  2. macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Cuidad de México
    #2
    The 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo and the SSD drive capacities are quite off for a thin computer.

    An Intel LV/ULV with 32/64/128 GB SSD would have been somewhat more believable.
     
  3. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2002
    Location:
    in denial…
    #3
    If real, then another question is…

    How about this option…?

    Apple Cinema SHD Display (40" flat panel) [add $2999]
     
  4. macrumors 68020

    Eric Lewis

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Location:
    CANADA? eh?
    #4
    look on apple.com/store


    then click macbook

    then black

    configure and look its the same but the hard drive is different

    fake
     
  5. macrumors member

    MHIoscar

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #5
    i cant wait till tomorrow!!!!

    :apple:
     
  6. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    #6
    Its good photoshop but not believable enough.
     
  7. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2007
    Location:
    Georgia
    #7
    Well, for me, the thing that seems most suspicious is the 2.8 gHz chip. Seems like way too much energy use and heat for an ultraportable.
     
  8. Administrator/Editor

    WildCowboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #8
    Throw in a graphics card capable of running a 40" display and you've got a toaster on your hands.
     
  9. macrumors 68000

    gazfocus

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Location:
    Liverpool, UK
    #9
    could be real :confused:
     
  10. MRU
    macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #10
    60GB ? Not a chance

    SSD available in increments like this...

    4 / 8 / 16 / 32 / 64 / 128 / 256

    Even if they could put two drive together to act as one there is still no chance of a 60GB using those calculations.



    Fake....
     
  11. macrumors 68000

    gazfocus

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Location:
    Liverpool, UK
    #11
    Yeah, I think it's fake... The Ultra Portable Mac is most likely to have some low powered CPU, not a 2.8GHz...who you trying to kid?

    I must admit, I love the idea, but to have that kind of CPU and be the same price as the current (past...depending when you're reading this) 2.2GHz Macbook Pro, is just a ridiculous idea.
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    scienide09

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #12
    Clearly fake.

    Read the descriptions of the BTO options -- they all say "MacBook", not "MacBook Air". It would make no sense to drop the model name, or give and incomplete name, when Apple is consistent everywhere else. The BTO options for the MBP all say "MacBook Pro" in their descriptions, and the same is true for the Mac Pro and iMac BTO options.
     
  13. MRU
    macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #13
    ^ True. An ultra-portable is not meant to be a powerhouse desktop replacement workstation.

    If were lucky we will have a 1.5 Core2Duo

    2.8 not a chance in hell.
     
  14. macrumors 6502

    ClassicMac247

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2007
    Location:
    Brick, NJ
    #14
    yes this was already posted, and the specs given are highly unlikely for a thin ultra portable laptop.
     
  15. macrumors regular

    canucks-17

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    #15
    80GB SSD BTO, WTF? Have they even come out with that? I know theres 128GB
     
  16. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #16
    4 GB of memory? 2.8 GHz core 2 duo? A graphics card (which, by the way, isn't even noted) that could support a 40" monitor?

    That's a stretch... to the moon and back.
     
  17. macrumors 6502a

    WildPalms

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Location:
    Honolulu, HI
    #17
    Every customize page says "Customize your Mac."

    It doesnt specify the model, as this screenshot does, and that seems fake.
     
  18. macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #18
    Um, I beg to differ.

    32+16+8+4=60GB. *gasp* Apple's offering RAID 0+1 in the ultraportable! :D
     
  19. Guest

    eric55lv

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2007
    Location:
    Las Vegas,NV
    #19
    But remember that also happened with the Power Mac G5 so it might be real
     
  20. macrumors 65816

    scienide09

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #20
    I saw that combination too. But the post you were quoting specifically said that there was no combination of putting two of them together to create 60 GB.
    I don't think 4 separate SSD drives in one unit would help with the size issue.
     
  21. macrumors 68000

    gazfocus

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Location:
    Liverpool, UK
    #21
    lol would cost a bit more than the suggested $1999 with that many SSD drives
     
  22. Mal
    macrumors 603

    Mal

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2002
    Location:
    Orlando
    #22
    Sorry, but it's just a poor quality Photoshop. Take a look at the spacing before the pricing on the RAM versus the supposed SSD drives (which, as noted, don't exist in those sizes). Very poorly done.

    jW
     
  23. macrumors 6502

    ArmyKnight12

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Location:
    Here
    #23
    garbage!
     
  24. macrumors 68020

    phungy

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Location:
    FL/NY/TX
    #24
    I agree. Zoom in and you'll see the "SSD Solid State" font doesn't match.
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    East Coast, US
    #25
    obviously a fake. i would have believed it if it were in an elevator though :)
     

Share This Page